ACL-Verbatim: hallucination-free question answering for research

Large language models are increasingly used to assist scientific reading, but existing evaluation methods often fail to detect whether answers are supported by verifiable citations. We introduce ResearchQA, a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers spanning eight domains and four question types: lookup, comprehension, multi-hop, and adversarial. ResearchQA is designed for citation-grounded evaluation: it permits multiple valid supporting passages for a claim and rewards grounded refusal when the source paper does not support an answer. We evaluate eight leading closed- and open-weight models in a citation-grounded chat-with-paper setting using a deterministic citation matcher and an LLM-based rubric evaluator. Citation-based metrics separate systems more clearly than LLM-evaluator scores: section coverage and citation accuracy vary substantially across models, while evaluator scores remain tightly compressed. We further find that open-weight models approach the best closed-model citation accuracy while achieving 3 to 6 times lower per-example latency. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and evaluator prompt.

Large language models (LLMs) have fundamentally transformed the landscape of Natural Language Processing. Despite these advances, LLMs and LLM-based systems remain prone to a variety of failure modes. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems have emerged as a common deployment scenario seeking to both avoid the well known risk of the LLM "hallucinating" information, and to enable reasoning and question answering over proprietary information that the LLM did not have access to during training without resorting to expensive model fine-tuning. In this work, we explore the idea of using a lightweight graph structure with a relatively simple graph schema, to support the RAG subsystem via a dedicated toolset. We design an agentic system with a variety of vector search and graph query tools operating over a structured dataset based on a curated subset of English Wikipedia articles, and evaluate its performance on questions from MoNaCo, a challenging Wikipedia QA benchmark of complex query answering tasks. Our results show that the introduction of graph-based tools can significantly increase the precision and recall of factual correctness, can halve the number of hallucinated answers, and achieves the highest fine-grained truthfulness score among the three evaluated scenarios. All this with a modest increase in token usage.

Scientific literature is increasingly used as a knowledge source for language models, retrieval-augmented generation systems, and research assistants, but answering research questions from papers requires more than fluent generation. A reliable system must identify the relevant papers, locate the concrete evidence that supports the answer, and produce a response that is faithful to that evidence. We present LitTraceQA, a benchmark for literature-grounded question answering over scientific papers. Given a research question and a metadata pool of papers, a system must return three connected outputs: canonical paper identifiers, supporting evidence locations, and answers in one or more requested formats, including free-form text, multiple-choice answers, and structured tables. LitTraceQA targets evidence types common in scientific reading: tables, figures, text spans, equations or algorithms, and citation contexts. The public development split contains 55 examples, including 26 hidden-source single-paper questions and 29 multi-paper questions, and provides gold papers, evidence annotations, and answers for local validation. We also analyze a larger final annotation collection with 4,978 unique-question records over 4,859 unique gold papers. By evaluating paper retrieval, evidence grounding, and answer accuracy separately, LitTraceQA provides a testbed for scientific QA systems that produce verifiable answers rather than unsupported summaries.